I've just gotten halfway through the Shield of Rannick with Meliski, and finally get to pick up the Brawler role and the weaponless d6 power. I've been wanting to play Brawler Meliski from the RotR box so he'd have access to Amulets of Mighty/Flaming fists since shortly after the Bard class deck came out, and, well now I'm there. But that's just a long aside.
Anyway, I was looking at the Gambler power of []When you ... would fail a check ... you may bury a card ([] from your discard pile) to succeed.
We've had a number of threads discussing how adding feats should typically add options, and not take them away. In this case, the wording on the ([] from your discard pile) seems to remove your hand as the option of where that card can come from. I would think the parenthetical ought to say ([] from your hand or discard pile).
Thoughts?
Hey Jim, long time no see. I'll be at PAX East on Saturday. Might I bump into you there?
On the Meliski question, I agree with you. I would expect the source of the buried card to be an option with the extra power feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd agree. This is one of the cases I was talking about before. Taking the feat shouldn't remove the pre-feat way to use the power.
Just my opinion of course.
I will most assuredly be around at PAX East, it is after all my engagementversary. I still need to look at my schedule to figure out when I can swing by to help Lucas and the gang (Special shoutout to James McTeague whom I have not yet met but posts here often enough), but we can find some time for PACG on Saturday.
I'd agree. This is one of the cases I was talking about before. Taking the feat shouldn't remove the pre-feat way to use the power.
Just my opinion of course.
Mine too.
And it's not about making character stronger. It's about the fact that in the middle of a game, no one will remember that he cannot do anymore something he was able to do before taking the role card.
This seems very similar to the Lirianne Deadeye power that they recently added to the FAQ. Though this is less clear cut, since I'd still call the discard pile version of the power a clear upgrade. In fact it's possible that the power is actually too good if you have a choice of either, and forcing you to switch is part of the balancing.
Either way I think it's a casualty of the implied "from your hand", in that there's no nice way to change "hand" to "hand or discard pile" when the "hand" part is unstated.
...Either way I think it's a casualty of the implied "from your hand", in that there's no nice way to change "hand" to "hand or discard pile" when the "hand" part is unstated.
Well, if I may... you just have to add 2 words so it's pretty easy :
[]When you ... would fail a check ... you may bury a card ([] from your hand or discard pile) to succeed.
Well, if I may... you just have to add 2 words so it's pretty easy :
[]When you ... would fail a check ... you may bury a card ([] from your hand or discard pile) to succeed.
Well I did say no nice way. If you write it that way, people are going to think they can't bury it from their hand because they haven't ticked the box that says they can.
Then they'll wonder where on earth they can bury it from, and probably eventually work out what's going on, but it's still pretty awkward.
It's a little weird but they could do this:
[]When you ... would fail a check ... you may bury a card from your hand ([] or discard pile) to succeed.
A danger is this might make people less aware that every card manipulation is always from your hand unless otherwise stated.
It's a little weird but they could do this:
[]When you ... would fail a check ... you may bury a card from your hand ([] or discard pile) to succeed.
A danger is this might make people less aware that every card manipulation is always from your hand unless otherwise stated.
Ok actually that is pretty nice. I agree with the down side you mention, but it's a good principle to follow that even if you don't technically have to say something, there can still be cases where you should still just say it anyway. This would be a good example. Definitely seems like the best thing to change it to if it's true that they intended to give the option.
Which I'm still not 100% convinced about, as I said above it's quite plausibly a balancing decision for it to work as it's currently worded.
Well, if I may... you just have to add 2 words so it's pretty easy :
[]When you ... would fail a check ... you may bury a card ([] from your hand or discard pile) to succeed.
Well I did say no nice way. If you write it that way, people are going to think they can't bury it from their hand because they haven't ticked the box that says they can.
Then they'll wonder where on earth they can bury it from, and probably eventually work out what's going on, but it's still pretty awkward.
See your point but tend to disagree. My experience is players' brains very fast understand that if a "([]...)" isn't check, you just wipe it when reading and just read the sentence without it. Thus they'll read:
[]When you ... would fail a check ... you may bury a card to succeed.Which never creates troubles since "you may bury a card to..." is a power written all over the place in many cards and no one ever wonders where do you have to bury from.
